MAAG was a US Army command, through and through - those guys were almost all Rangers and Special Forces, with some Navy and CIA-types thrown in for good measure. Calling them "advisors" doesn't change the nature of what they were, though - heck, if you'd asked the Kennedy/Johnson administrations, they'd have told you there were 24,000 "advisors" in VN by 1964. Certainly blame JFK for escalating it, but the Army was on the ground in VN long before he was elected...
For that matter, I am one of the few right-wingers who finds some serious value in the Vietnam war, that being to forestall the Soviet Union and China during their most dangerous years. Well, China is still dangerous, but nobody can get away with wantonly running over nations anymore without the whole world seeing.
Shoulda stuck by the Vietnamese, then - they have no love for the Chinese, either, since at least 1978 when the Vietnamese drove out Pol pot, and the Chinese invaded VN in retaliation. Heck, the Vietnamese are our natural allies against the Chinese....
My main point is to dissuade the legions of gullible voters from instinctively assigning the blame for all things awful on the GOP, as the outline readily does.
Nothing wrong with that, but it's important to make sure all the facts are solidly nailed down, in that case, or people will jump all over the slightest error and use it to discredit the whole kit and caboodle. Consider this a friendly critique... ;)
It is my understanding that until Kennedy was elected in 1960, there were never more than a thousand members of the military in Vietnam in whatever capacity. That number might be three thousand. I better check. Though possibly Special Forces, it was certainly not the type of drafted foot soldiers we would get when the Democrats became involved.
There is no problem getting facts corrected or receiving friendly critiques. And I thank you. It helps me make my case stronger afterward. I do think you have made a fair point, though still contend that a sharp and dramatic contrast resides between how the Democrats and Republicans treated that conflict, leaving my original contention worthy of remaining part of the essay.
A few items as you have noticed can certainly be expanded upon to account for every nuance related to the topics in that piece. However, the essay was already 12 pages. Taking time to explain each consideration would possibly cost many potential readers because of expanding it a few more pages with gray text instead of slam bang facts that hit people in the face. Regardless, it was and remains an area of conflict within me because of what often ends up later as a need to explain them anyway. I'm still thinking about it.